which, in the terms of ordinary language, just means, the increase of David's educational excellence or qualities--his piety, his prayerfulness, his humility, obedience, etc.--was so great, that when multiplied by his original talent and position, it produced a product so great as to be equal in its amount to royalty, honor, wealth, and power, etc.: in short, to all the attributes of majesty."[165] The "solution of the family problem" is of high interest. It is to determine the effect on the family in general from a change [of conduct] in one of them. The person chosen is one of the maid-servants. "Let c e x be the father; c_1e_1x_1 the mother, etc. The family then consists of the maid's master, her mistress, her young master, her young mistress, and fellow servant. Now the master's calling (or c) is to exercise his share of control over this servant, and mind the rest of his business: call this remainder a, and let his calling generally, or all his affairs, be to his maid-servant as m : y, i.e., y = (mz/c); ... {79} and this expression will represent his relation to the servant. Consequently, c e x = (a + mz/c)e x; otherwise (a + mz/c)e x is the expression for the father when viewed as the girl's master." I have no objection to repeat so far; but I will not give the formula for the maid's relation to her young master; for I am not quite sure that all young masters are to be trusted with it. Suffice it that the son will be affected directly as his influence over her, and inversely as his vocational power: if then he should have some influence and no vocational power, the effect on him would be infinite. This is dismal to think of. Further, the formula brings out that if one servant improve, the other must deteriorate, and _vice versa_. This is not the experience of most families: and the author remarks as follows: "That is, we should venture to say, a very beautiful result, and we may say it yielded us no little astonishment. What our calculation might lead to we never dreamt of; that it should educe a conclusion so recondite that our unassisted power never could have attained to, and which, if we could have conjectured it, would have been at best the most distant probability, that conclusion being itself, as it would appear, the quintessence of truth, afforded us a measure of satisfaction that was not slight." That the writings of Mr. Boole and myself "go to the full justification of" this "principle," is only true in the sense in which the Scotch use, or did use, the word _justification_. A TRIBUTE TO BOOLE.